In-game debates and rules disputes: What do you do about them?

[IcyCool]

So, you would toss people who expect that you will be playing by the D&D rules when you said you would be playing by the D&D rules? It seems to me that would make them the lucky ones. At the very least, they won't be feeding your megalomanical power fantasies any more.

No, I would toss a player who spends that much time whining about a rules-call. Even if that rules-call is blatantly wrong. Point out that I'm wrong, sure. But don't whine at me after I've made my decision.

And I'll thank you to keep the childish insults to yourself. Your point is strong enough without resorting to that sort of behaviour.

A common, and quite asinine attitude among DMs who just aren't any good. The players are showing up to play. They are as critical to the game as you are, and to expect that they will bow down to your magnificence because you are standing behind the DM screen is a sign of a DM who has no real confidence in his abilities.

I never said my players should "bow down to my magnificence". Why do you seem to think I did? I'm imperfect, and all of my players know that.

Yes, and the game runs nice and smooth with no rule disagreements when the DM isn't changing things mid-stream. You see, when you actually use the rules that people expect to be used, you have very few disagreements or arguments over random changes made on the fly.

The game also runs nice and smooth with no rule disagreements when the DM IS changing things mid-stream.

The only games I have been in where there were long nitpicking arguments about the rules were ones in which the DM ignored the rules as written on a regular basis without giving advance warning. The games where the rules were followed resulted in virtually no disagreements, arguments, or nitpicking.

*sigh* I can only dream of having players that don't nitpick about the rules (whether they are right or not). Honestly, you should count yourself lucky.

You know, I'm willing to bet that you and I would enjoy each other's games.

Using the rules as written unless otherwise specified has the effect of eliminating long nitpicking arguments about the rules. Try it some time.

Sadly, this has proven not to be true for me.

No. I had never even heard of dumpshock until your post.

Ah, never mind then.

 

[IcyCool]

Everyone else in the campaign gets to play half-celestial elves. You get to play a blind, deaf, mute kobold with no hands or legs. There are no level adjustments, or other modifications to take into account the difference in character ability.

Don't worry about the other characters, worry about your own. Having fun?

Possibly. More than likely I'll find another game. But do you know what I won't do? Whine to the DM.

 

[Henry]

...when you actually use the rules that people expect to be used, you have very few disagreements or arguments over random changes made on the fly.

I offer the D&D Rules Forum itself as my proof for why I have to disagree with this statement. Some players can't even agree on the rules as written, hence half of the threads in this forum, and the very reason why Nail asked the original question in the first place. The group has to have some form of final arbitration besides the rule books, if nothing but majority vote at the table, right or wrong.

 

[Storm Raven]

I rather deliberately made it a case where the house rule helped the NPC's, because I knew that rules lawyers (no offense intended, consider it pay back for all the times I've been called a Stalinist dictator so far) would immediately side with the PC's.

In reality, a true rules lawyer would side with the rules. No matter who they benefit.

If I had have made it a case where the DM's judgement helped the PC's, then the rules lawyers might have smelled a trap and deftly avoided it in a way that would make it difficult to prove thier hypocracy.

I don't think that the word "hypocrisy" meanswhat you seem to think it means. You certainly haven't shown any examples in this thread.

But now that I've got the rules lawyers to buy hook line and sinker into the argument that its unreasonable to be able to run around an oval track and any DM that allowed that is being a total jerk (and worse things), then I think it ought to be completely apparant to everyone that the rules lawyers are being rules lawyers.

No, because it is unreasonable to alter the rules mid-stream. That's the point you keep falling down on. Because there are other ways within the rules to accomplish what you wanted to, they just aren't quite as effective as a massive tricked out charge.

There is of course absolutely no reason why the person wanting to charge or run on a slightly curving path couldn't be a PC, and I would rule exactly the same way regardless because in real life we all know that its reasonable to be able to run in a gently curving path because we've all done it at one point or the other.

Except that prior to you changing the rules mid-stream, the PC wouldn't have known he could charge on a gently curving path. I think what you are categorizing as "running on a gently curving path" is actually "double moving" by the rules. Running on a gently curving path slows you down relative to running in a straight line, just like the rules reflect. In this case, your mid-stream rules alteration not only changes the rules, but it doesn't reflect reality either (a point I chose to ingore earlier, but now that you've gone and tried to justify your silliness with the "that's what happens in the real world" argument, it needs to be addressed).

And if the rules lawyers argue that its only appropriate to change the rules midstream when it helps the PC's, then their hypocracy is only shown more clearly.

Has anyone here argued that? I don't think so. Nice strawman you've erected.

And since they've made thier point so clearly and rudely, that they can't go back on it now that the trap is sprung. So as far as I'm concerned, I've won.

Except that your "trap" is an illusion contained in your head. No one is arguing the point you seem to think "rules lawyers" are making, and your example is still a very clear instance of a DM acting like a Jerk.

Lastly, I think I now finally understand why some players claim that they prefer 1st edition. This would have never occured in earlier editions because the rules were looser and so much more was left up to DM judgement. I suspect alot of players and DM's would be frustrated by how hidebound the game feels if there are people in the party treating the rules as some here have suggested.

It was much worse in 1st edition. Since so little was actually codified, there were any number of disagreements on a myriad of subjects, because there was so little common ground for people who had not played together exstensively. DMs came up with all kinds of rules to fill in the gaps, and this caused multitudes of arguments. 3e/3.5e is much better in this regard - provided you work with the rule system and not against it. Everyone knows how the game works, at least when the DM isn't Cartman Jr.

 

[DonTadow]

Let's calm down a bit guys. I've aleady been apart of one thread that was ended this week ( RIP PUZZLE thread)

This argument, at its base, is about wanting to be heard and understanding. No one likes when someone tells them something to do without an explaination. I am sure we all grew out of this at the age of seven. We as human beings need explanation. We also need consistency. Lets go out of the D and D realm and put this into real life context. What if you stopped at a stop sign and got pulled over for the police because you waited 1 seconds instead of 3 seconds. Even though the law clearly states 3 seconds, but the police tell you that its 3. He talks to you about it and you still disagree with that, he throws you in jail.

Now take the same situation, this time the police office tellls you tis 3 seconds and explains that this is the law here because this is a deaf community and several people have died here before. He tells thep erson he pulled over that this law is a law and is consisstent with other laws in the book. Well that changes thigns and actually you'd probably feel a bit guilty for pulling off so soon.

The thing that changed in the situation is the DM took the time to explain his decision (given he had a reason) and made sure to insure the player that this ruling would be consistent for the remainder of the campaignn.

Whereas I will not go as far in langauge as the last post, I will say that we as DMs overall do need to be more openminded to the players. I once asked in a post how many dms plan their worlds with their players and to that I got a hefty 10 to 20 percent. Whereas i do not want to impose my way of dm'n on anyone, iget alot of more flack in my games that incorporate my players.

 

[Storm Raven]

I offer the D&D Rules Forum itself as my proof for why I have to disagree with this statement. Some players can't even agree on the rules as written, hence half of the threads in this forum, and the very reason why Nail asked the original question in the first place.

Actually, Nail asked his original question because the DM wasn't using the rules as written. If the DM had, then this thread would have never existed.

The group has to have some form of final arbitration besides the rule books, if nothing but majority vote at the table, right or wrong.

And you have far fewer disagreements when your stick to the rules as written (or changed with warning). Sure, there are interstitial gaps that need filling and rulings to be made, but those are far fewer when the DM isn't also changing the basic rules as he goes.

 

[Storm Raven]

This argument, at its base, is about wanting to be heard and understanding. No one likes when someone tells them something to do without an explaination. I am sure we all grew out of this at the age of seven. We as human beings need explanation. We also need consistency. Lets go out of the D and D realm and put this into real life context. What if you stopped at a stop sign and got pulled over for the police because you waited 1 seconds instead of 3 seconds. Even though the law clearly states 3 seconds, but the police tell you that its 3. He talks to you about it and you still disagree with that, he throws you in jail.

I would say that a better example would be that you stop for 3 seconds, but the police officer pulls you over any way. He explains to you that even though you did stop for 3 seconds, he thinks it should actually be a requirement to stop for 5 seconds, no matter what the law actually says, because it makes for better traffic flow in his opinion. He arrests you and puts you in jail because you only stopped for 3 seconds.

Would you complain? Would you be unreasonable to expect the cop to follow the law?

 

[DonTadow]

The suggestion to discuss and research it over the course of the week is the best solution to solve player/dm arguments.

Try to solve it in game for two minutes. If you can't come to a decision, in the two minutes of in game time dedicated towards it, rule as a DM and inform your players you will research it in the week. Do make sure you tell them in a nice and firm manner and let them know that you don't want to risk gametime for this but it is important and you will get on it during the week.
Then make your ruling.

But... here's the kicker, sometimes rule the way of the player. If there is a player who always seems to know it all and often wrong, there is nothing more humbling than someone saing finally we will go with yoru idea and then aqfter the research telling them that you found out that they were wrong. If you alre always shutting that player up and saying i am dm pipe down... then that player will get bitter and "just like it is human to do" challenge you more. Make sure t o incorporate that player into your research. Reference pages and such and note the rulings you have made.

 

[DonTadow]

I would say that a better example would be that you stop for 3 seconds, but the police officer pulls you over any way. He explains to you that even though you did stop for 3 seconds, he thinks it should actually be a requirement to stop for 5 seconds, no matter what the law actually says, because it makes for better traffic flow in his opinion. He arrests you and puts you in jail because you only stopped for 3 seconds.

Would you complain? Would you be unreasonable to expect the cop to follow the law?

In this scenerio, the cop (dm)makes the mistake of not giving a good reason as to why he went agaisnt the law. I think, as this scenerio points out, that a dm should have a really good reason to deviate otuside the rules and this deviation should be explained thourougly to the players (of course this is the part where we drag this scenerio to the court room.).

Now if we're in court and the cop/dm says because i wanted traffic flow better here, the player wins the case because there is no real reason why he is doing it other than he wants traffic to flow better (pretty vague) . But if that cops goes into a story as to explain his community (world) and explain the people (deaf) and explain the rulings (in this world this world people have keen ability to turn on a dime) then the dm follows up with an apology for not presenting the information earlier (perhaps even doing something to make up the mistake) then the cop wins the case and the sympathy of the jury.

 

[Caeleddin]

I would like to see what sort of an uproar there will be if a police officer walks into a pub, grabs a guy and tosses him into a car and procede to arrest him for DWI.

"Sorry. The rules changed this second. You are under arrest for DWI. The reason is that you were in a pub. It doesn't matter if you didn't drink or even this car isn't yours (which remind me, you are under arrest for breaking and entering as well) or the car isn't even started. The penalty for DWI is death. That started a second ago too. Good-bye."

*bang*


Don't tell me that the above scenario is not the same as a DM changing things to suit himself willy-nilly, without telling the player beforehand.